[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date: Thu, 24 Oct 2019 14:28:32 +0100
From: Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>
To: Sami Tolvanen <samitolvanen@...gle.com>
Cc: Will Deacon <will@...nel.org>,
Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@....com>,
Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
Ard Biesheuvel <ard.biesheuvel@...aro.org>,
Dave Martin <Dave.Martin@....com>,
Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>,
Laura Abbott <labbott@...hat.com>,
Nick Desaulniers <ndesaulniers@...gle.com>,
clang-built-linux <clang-built-linux@...glegroups.com>,
Kernel Hardening <kernel-hardening@...ts.openwall.com>,
linux-arm-kernel <linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 06/18] add support for Clang's Shadow Call Stack (SCS)
On Tue, Oct 22, 2019 at 12:26:02PM -0700, Sami Tolvanen wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 22, 2019 at 9:28 AM Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com> wrote:
> > > +config SHADOW_CALL_STACK
> > > + bool "Clang Shadow Call Stack"
> > > + depends on ARCH_SUPPORTS_SHADOW_CALL_STACK
> > > + depends on CC_IS_CLANG && CLANG_VERSION >= 70000
> >
> > Is there a reason for an explicit version check rather than a
> > CC_HAS_<feature> check? e.g. was this available but broken in prior
> > versions of clang?
>
> No, this feature was added in Clang 7. However,
> -fsanitize=shadow-call-stack might require architecture-specific
> flags, so a simple $(cc-option, -fsanitize=shadow-call-stack) in
> arch/Kconfig is not going to work. I could add something like this to
> arch/arm64/Kconfig though:
>
> select ARCH_SUPPORTS_SHADOW_CALL_STACK if CC_HAVE_SHADOW_CALL_STACK
> ...
> config CC_HAVE_SHADOW_CALL_STACK
> def_bool $(cc-option, -fsanitize=shadow-call-stack -ffixed-x18)
>
> And then drop CC_IS_CLANG and version check entirely. Thoughts?
That sounds good to me, yes!
Thanks,
Mark.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists
Confused about mailing lists and their use?
Read about mailing lists on Wikipedia
and check out these
guidelines on proper formatting of your messages.
